Mr. Toads Wild Ride

I'm not aware if you've heard a lot regarding the sad and quite disgusting lack of journalistic integrity at the most recent debate on ABC between Clinton and Obama; if not read about it here.

It's not just about being wrong on so many levels journalistically, it reeks of how far gone our democracy is and how much control We the People have given up. But I'll go 50/50 in terms of responsibility between the American citizen on the one hand, and how we get informed on the other. (For this post at least). A major part of the problem is our news media.

Let's just take a look at what the top stories are, listed in order, as of right now (12;39 pm EST, 4/26/08) from MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News.


MSNBC

- Democrats fear lasting racial divide
- McCain teams up with Huckabee
- Newsweek: If Clinton wins it's payback time
- Half say presidential campaign too negative
- Beach closed after killer shark attack
- Bell's fiancee: 'They killed Sean all over again'
- Mugabe's rivals win parliament
- Report: 14-year-old girl killed in Gaza clashes
- Heavy security thwarts Japanese torch protests



CNN

- Bell's Fiancee: 'They killed Sean all over again'
- Man gets out of jail with one-word blog
- Truck driver questioned in train station accident
- Zimbabwe recount shows opposition ahead
- Chicago cops out in force to deter shootings
- FBI investigates possible kidnap for ransom
- Atheist soldier claims harassment
- Man survives 500-foot fall into strip mine
- Ticker: Obama plays b-ball with WNBA star



Fox News

- Experts debate cause of rising oil prices
- Dems on road to victory?
- Fla. Official: Buy clothes, not booze
- Turkey confirms mediation between Syria, Israel
- R.I. illegals face crackdown amid state budget crisis
- Boy, 7, faces Grand Theft Auto after SUV joyride
- Fiancee of groom shot by cops: 'It's not over'
- Airlines lure fliers with gourmet menus, star chefs
- NFL draft day: College stars turn pro



Most of these news stories, while I won't say they aren't worth reporting, are, to put it bluntly, crap. Who ranked these as "Top Stories?" I mean, a school board official emailing parents who were complaining about school uniforms to prioritize their spending is a top news story? A man getting out of jail because he text-messaged his friends is a top news story? And what about half of whoever was polled saying the campaign for president is too negative. How is this news? How do these stories contribute in any way to the fact that I've watched gasoline go up almost 35 cents the last week?

Now, some of these stories are very newsworthy, don't get me wrong. Mugabe's rivals win parliament is good and debating rising oil prices is very good. But you really have to read between the lines here, and see the news that is not making it onto these three major news corporations' website. Let's go have a look at news posted today and then yesterday:

- U.S. weighing readiness for military action against Iran (Washington Post)
- Many states appear to be in recession as deficits grow (New York Times)

- Shops rations sales of rice as US buyers panic (The Guardian)
- Experts fear nation's waterways need rescuing - from us (Associated Press / Common Dreams)
- Town in the Andes face crisis as glaciers melt (San Francisco Chronicle)
- WWF warns Arctic ice melting faster than predicted (Agence France Presse / Yahoo News)
- Hundreds of EPA scientists report political interference (Los Angeles Times)





These are very serious issues being reported by mainstream, reputable news sources. Why have not MSNBC, CNN, or FOX News picked any of them up as a top story? Arctic ice melting faster than predicted? Um...isn't this a little more serious than a man trespassing in a mine falling 500 feet? Or how about even more evidence that "during much of the Bush administration, there have been reports of the White House watering down documents on climate change, industry language inserted into EPA power-plant regulations and scientific advisory panels' conclusions about toxic chemicals going unheeded." Surely that has to be more important than who Obama played basketball with?

The most logical conclusion I can come up with is that the corporations who own these major networks must have a very large stake in political and economic policy outcomes. Not only do they own the networks listed above, but they also own newspapers, radio stations, other TV stations, and major corporations like Microsoft, NBC, General Electric, HBO, the Atlanta Braves, DC Comics, Time magazine, People magazine, LA Dodgers, LA Kings, LA Lakers, and HarperCollins Books, just to name a few.

With such a HUGE stake in national, and indeed global, finance, would it not be in these corporations best interest to help sway public opinion in their favor? What is their incentive to do otherwise? In any event, it's a moot point. Just taking my totally unscientific, yet very interesting survey sample of what was reported on major national news networks versus news from other major national and European sources in the last two days, it would seem that there are many very important, very time-sensitive issues out there not being reported on nationally.

Could this be one reason why Americans are apathetic to politics? Could the triviality and absurd reality of major network and cable news turn people off to any type of serious debate about current issues and our future? The President of the United States, right after 9/11 tells Americans to go shopping; with a recession gearing up for full-force in 2008, this same guy gives us a tax rebate so we will go shopping.

Are you picking up what I'm putting down? Could there be a connection here?

Recaps and Roundabouts

I'm very happy indeed that I've begun to see the mainstream media continue to do follow-up articles on very important stories. The only way a democracy can function is if its citizens are educated; and articles that follow a story through to conclusion are wonderful and much-needed.



Sedatives and Sex Hormones in Our Water Supply: Democracy Now's Amy Goodman explores what's in our water, how it got there, and the current state of pharmaceuticals in our drinking water.



France Won't Rule Out Opening Ceremony Boycott: It's better than nothing, but still not good enough. "French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Tuesday that he cannot rule out the possibility he might boycott the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics if China continues its crackdown in Tibet."



The Real Rev. Wright: The Footage Fox and the Other Networks Won't Show: An awesome and moving video of Obama's preacher telling telling the bare, dirty, glorious truth to his congregation. This is a must watch.



TV, film, game violence threatens public health: Bowling for Columbine explored the topic of fear and if it makes the United States a more violent nation. (If you have yet to see it, please do). Parents were up in arms over the very popular Grand Theft Auto video game series where you can carjack, kill, knife, and sleep with prostitutes anytime you want. And if you get out of the car and go kill the prostitute, you get all your money back. How can this be good for us?




Take a political break and watch this; it wouldn't be so funny if it weren't so true! Eddie Izzard comments on the end of the world, but more so about computers and humans.

These are the days of our lives

According to a top news article here, 2007 has been the deadliest year for U.S. troops.

In light of that; they're old enough now to ask how dad died. I also hope that they're asking (and being told) exactly why their fathers (and mothers) are no longer alive. Here's a hint: it wasn't weapons of mass destruction (like Bush said), or bringing democracy to Iraq (after no WMD's were found), or going after al-Qaeda in Iraq (after democracy didn't work), or - well, al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until we invaded that country so - get the pattern?





Just in case you don't get the pattern, retired Army Gen. John Abizaid said that our war in the Middle East could last 50 years. "...but we shouldn't assume for even a minute that in the next 25 to 50 years the American military might be able to come home..." It's all part of a much bigger plan that has been obvious for quite awhile now. From the stated goals of the Project for a New American Century to presidential candidate Mitt Romney when he says, "For me what America should do is strengthen our military, strengthen our economy and strengthen our family structure so that we always remain the most powerful nation on earth. A world without America as the leader is a very frightening place."

How arrogant is that!? What would a German citizen or English, or Indian, or take your pick of other citizenry, think of that? That's like a kid on the playground saying he's not going to let anyone else run things - it's his way or you get pounded. Surely our founding fathers didn't have empire in mind when they created the grandest experiment in democracy saying that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."






A good part of the problem is our media. Not only that it's highly concentrated by mega-corporations, but that the people asking and discussing important questions are incompetent at best. The always on target Eric Alterman discusses that here.

Our newspapers, magazines and television programs do a horrible job of telling us what we need to know about candidates. How does Clinton's health plan differ from Obama's? Moreover, what exactly is Clinton's health plan? Oh, I hear plenty about how the Republicans are against it, how she's the front runner, how she cackles; but what are the ins and outs - the particulars - of her health care plan? Why isn't this discussed? About half-way down this article by Eric Boehlert talking about the press' reaction to a Stephen Colbert presidential run, you come across this:

"Look at the latest research findings from the campaign trail: "Just 12% of stories examined were presented in a way that explained how citizens might be affected by the election," according to Editor & Publisher magazine. "And just one percent of stories examined the candidates' record or past public performance.""

A functioning democracy must have an engaged and informed citizenry. If we're not getting pertinent information from the media, what kind of democracy are we living in?

Sorry State of Affairs

The Democrats were elected to end the war. They have not and will not. This is part of the problem with a two-party system. I am not ideologically aligned with the Republicans and I'm maybe half-way aligned with the Democrats. I don't respect either party - so who am I to vote for? Many people share this sentiment, including Greens, Libertarians, and Constitutional party members. Back to the war and Democrats: they say they do not have enough votes to stop the war - and I have yet to know about one instance where a reporter has called them on their bullshit. Not one reporter... save Paul Krugman here:

"But the truth is, Democrats have all the votes they need to stop the war — if they are willing to use the power given them by the Constitution to block the supplemental funding bill unless it includes a deadline for bringing the troops home. As Norm Ornstein told me: “Whatever the White House sends to the House is constitutionally merely a suggestion.” The prerogative to bring a funding bill to the floor rests entirely with the majority — which, in case Democrats have forgotten, is theirs. As for the Senate, Democrats there would only have to find 41 votes to block the supplemental funding bill."





I can't say this enough: if you have not read 1984 by George Orwell - GO READ IT!! It will help highlight the ways in which our liberties and freedoms (that we take for granted) are being "legally" taken away from us.

Why do I bring this up? Because the Bush Administration is trying very hard to get the American people supportive (through terrorizing us) of a war with Iran. The same methods used to scare (terrorize) its own citizens into a war with Iraq are being used again. Bush and Co. say that Iran could develop a nuclear bomb in a few short years. However, "the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said Sunday he had no evidence Iran was working actively to build nuclear weapons and expressed concern that escalating rhetoric from the U.S. could bring disaster." You can read the full article concerning Mohamed ElBaradei, who leads the International Atomic Energy Agency here.






This is a very good example of profound slavishness to the Bush Administration's hatred of regulation, fairness, and objectivity. "Ms. Nord, the top official for consumer product safety, opposes provisions that would increase the maximum penalties for safety violations and make it easier for the government to make public reports of faulty products, protect industry whistleblowers and prosecute executives of companies that willfully violate laws."





If we do not take action on this like, yesterday, life as we have come to know it is going to be radically altered - probably forever. And it won't be pretty.

"Humans are changing the Earth's climate so fast and devouring resources so voraciously that the survival of the world's ecosystems and of humanity itself is at stake, a new UN report says. The 570-page Global Environment Outlook, published by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), paints a dire picture of planet-wide death and degradation. With more than six billion people, Earth's population is now so big that "the amount of resources needed to sustain it exceeds what is available," the report warned, adding that the global population is expected to peak at between 8 and 9.7 billion by 2050."

It's laughable to the point of insanity that our country is hyper-focused on immigration, gay marriage, and abortion rather than the fact that we are destroying that which gives us nourishment and life.





The United States has military troops in about 135 countries around the world. If that's not the tentacles of empire, I don't know what is. How many countries have troops in our country? How many foreign militaries have bases in our country? That's why I must applaud Ecuador for being fair and balanced in this regard.

History the Media Neglects

The drums are getting louder...Bush, Cheney, and their war machine's fear-mongering about the imminent threat from Iran are all over the news. (Why wasn't Iran an imminent threat when Iraq was an imminent threat?).

All of a sudden, Iran is the new Iraq, they want nuclear weapons that Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea, and the U.S. have, and they're supposedly training Iraqi's - a people who are their religious enemies.

They are enriching uranium which can be used for two things: 1. nuclear power and/or 2. nuclear weapons. The funny thing is that Iran has signed the UN Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which allow it to enrich uranium for nuclear power.

In any event, aside from the very astute Ron Paul, I have yet to hear any politician or major media news outlet bring up the history between Iran and the United States. My presumption is that when one does this, it becomes easy to see that we bear a lot of the fault for the Middle East in Crisis.

Excerpts from the main story (1) in this month's edition of Adbusters tells the tale simply:

1953: After an economic blockade and the presence of British warships in the Persian Gulf failed to break Mohammed Mossadegh's will, the British government persuaded the incoming Eisenhower administration to send in the CIA. (Mossadegh was a liberal democrat who believed fervently in national independence - Time magazine's Man of the Year - and was democratically elected as Prime Minister in 1952). A CIA operative named Kermit Roosevelt helped bring about this cautionary note in an official CIA report: "Possibilities of blowback against the United States should always be in the back of the minds of all CIA officers involved in this type of operation."


1954: Anglo-Iranian (Oil) changes its name to British Petroleum and regains its assets, but must share its monopoly with American oil companies. Mohammed Reza Shah is restored to the throne with help from the American-trained SAVAK secret police who torture and disappear even the most timid of dissidents. (Mossadegh had nationalized Iran's oil industry in 1951).


1971: The Shah throws himself a $100-million party at Persepolis to commemorate the 2,500th anniversary of the Persian Empire...the party must be held behind barbed wire, guarded by men with machine guns as protests erupt at Tehran University.


1979: After enduring a long reign of terror, a broad-based popular revolution overthrows the Shah. Five million Iranians crowd the streets of Tehran to welcome the revolution's symbolic leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, on his return from exile in Paris.


November 1979: Fueled by the belief that the U.S. is about to launch another coup after allowing the Shah to take refuge there, militant students seize the American embassy in Tehran, holding 52 hostages for 444 days. Ayatollah Khomeini, who was not involved in the hostage-taking, nevertheless lends his support and uses the distraction to consolidate power. Students piece together hundreds of pages of secret documents outlining the extent of former American control of Iran and its plans to destabilize the new regime.


1980: President Jimmy Carter orders a hostage rescue operation that goes terribly wrong. With Carter's popularity plummeting, Ronald Reagan wins a landslide victory in the presidential election. The hostages are released six minutes after Reagan is sworn in, contributing to allegations that his emissaries secretly negotiated to extend the hostage-taking until after the elections.


1983: Saddam Hussein, who invaded Iran in 1980 with the quiet encouragement of the U.S., has begun to use poison gas on Iranians on an almost daily basis. According to the Washington Post, "The administration of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague."


1983: Donald Rumsfeld visits Saddam Hussein in Baghdad as special envoy of Ronald Reagan to discuss common interests and Iraqi oil shipments. Rumsfeld was previously involved (along with Dick Cheney) in promoting the development of Iran's nuclear program under the Shah.


2005: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a veteran of the Iran-Iraq war, is elected president of Iran. Within days of his election, the country announces it is proceeding with uranium enrichment.


2007: As Iraq descends into chaos with 700,000 Iraqis dead, the U.S. administration issues a troop "surge" in hope of regaining control, and makes the unusual argument that Tehran is arming anti-US insurgents - most of whom are Sunni and traditional enemies of the Shia Iranians. In January the U.S. raids an Iranian consulate in Kurdish Iraq, capturing low-level Iranian diplomatic staff; Iraqi troops working for the U.S. later capture an Iranian diplomat in Baghdad. Soon after, Iran captures 12 British sailors on an intelligence mission in disputed waters. The sailors are released a day after the Iranian diplomat, who claims to have been tortured by the CIA, is returned to Iran.


2007: U.S. fleet carriers gather in the Persian Gulf; Mohammad ElBaradei, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, announces that a military attack on Iran would be "an act of madness," and stresses that nonproliferation efforts are undermined as long as the "big boys" - such as the U.S. and Israel - are permitted to have nuclear weapons. The U.S. president authorizes the CIA to engage in covert operations to destabilize the Iranian regime.

In the media coverage, comparisons to the 1953 CIA regime change in Iran are nowhere to be found.





1. Campbell, Deborah Iran vs. The United States of Amnesia; Adbusters #73, Volume 15 Number 5; 2007.

We're becoming the Borg

Part of what makes a democracy a democracy is the ability of citizens to be given facts and figures for all sides of an issues. Especially with the war in Iraq, there is all kinds of howling on the Right that the media is unfair to Bush & Co. and that it's a vast wasteland of Liberal thought. Oh, if only it were true.

Here's a study released today that analyzed Syndicated Op-Ed columnists in papers all across the country. And guess what they found:

• Sixty percent of the nation's daily newspapers print more conservative syndicated columnists every week than progressive syndicated columnists. Only 20 percent run more progressives than conservatives, while the remaining 20 percent are evenly balanced.

• In a given week, nationally syndicated progressive columnists are published in newspapers with a combined total circulation of 125 million. Conservative columnists, on the other hand, are published in newspapers with a combined total circulation of more than 153 million.2

• The top 10 columnists as ranked by the number of papers in which they are carried include five conservatives, two centrists, and only three progressives.

• The top 10 columnists as ranked by the total circulation of the papers in which they are published also include five conservatives, two centrists, and only three progressives.

• In 38 states, the conservative voice is greater than the progressive voice -- in other words, conservative columns reach more readers in total than progressive columns. In only 12 states is the progressive voice greater than the conservative voice.

• In three out of the four broad regions of the country -- the West, the South, and the Midwest -- conservative syndicated columnists reach more readers than progressive syndicated columnists. Only in the Northeast do progressives reach more readers, and only by a margin of 2 percent.

• In eight of the nine divisions into which the U.S. Census Bureau divides the country, conservative syndicated columnists reach more readers than progressive syndicated columnists in any given week. Only in the Middle Atlantic division do progressive columnists reach more readers each week.

There is NO liberal media. 99% of all newspapers and television stations are owned by only 10 HUGE corporations. What's the #1 goal of a corporation? It's bottom line. Not democracy, not hearing all sides of an issue and obviously not letting all sides have equal air & print time.

You Can't Keep Keepin' Us Down

The more I hear Ron Paul talk and the more I see the MSM ignore him, the more I know he's onto something and the more I truly respect him. I don't know if I'd vote for him because some of his Libertarian views are just too far of a stretch for me to take, however, he's smart, articulate, full of integrity and has a firm grasp on the issues -- which is a lot more than I can say for any other Republican candidate and quite a few of the Democratic ones. I'd like to include those from the Green, Libertarian, or other third parties in this discussion, but for some odd reason, we in this country like to limit our freedom of representational choice to two sides of the same coin.

Outstanding Ron Paul at the recent Republican Debate can be seen here with some transcripts and a blog by Eric Garris about it here.



Now this (and this) has been making me smile all day. I truly love good ol' fashioned checks and balances. Let's hear it (finally) for some democracy in the USA!



This just really amazes me. It amazes me not only that the MSM doesn't report on this, but that Congress allows it to happen. If you have this revolving door of people who work for the government, then go work for major corporations, then back to the government - are they really going to represent the people and do what is in our best interest? Or are they going to bend over backwards to please those who gave them these cushy loyalty jobs?



I get a very dark, sinister feeling about this. (Another Eric Garris blog - the original story is here.) Bush has already admitted that his plan is to keep troops in Iraq up to, and hopefully after, he leaves office. Iraq is without question a gigantic illegal and immoral disaster. Maybe some quick strikes on Iran will help bolster the GOP's chances for a favorable outcome in 2008. We wouldn't bomb people just to win elections...would we?




Kudo's to Sony (and Japan) for pushing the limits and boundaries of human ingenuity. This is just awesome! Our imaginations are the only boundaries to our creativity.

That's why not for one second do I buy into this crap that Bush & Co keep polluting our national discourse with regarding CO2 limits and reduction: It'll hurt the economy or Other nations pollute, too! What are we, only the greatest nation when it comes to bombing people? News flash - creating new energy resources through research, development, and productions WILL CREATE NEW JOBS AND HELP THE ECONOMY! Why is no one throwing this back at Bush when he repeats the same tired lies?

Does the consumer decide?

We hear all the time that corporations do not choose to make this or that product and news companies only air the stories that we the people want to hear about.

Really? I've never had any corporation or any news media outlet question me about what kind of product I would like them to make or what I feel should be on the evening news.

Maybe I'm just one of those who didn't get polled, but I don't know anyone who has ever been polled in such a manner.

It's just a nice little ploy to get you to believe you're in control. How many of us really want more commercials, for example?

For some straight facts and analysis, this can't be beat.


An unrelated note:

Oh beautiful, for spacious skies, for amber waves of grain.....For purple mountains majesties...

And We Keep Rollin' On...

First - regarding my post from yesterday and the stranglehold our two-party system has on representation - Kucinich agrees here.


Second - we're in 42nd place for life expectancy - but number one here.


I'm all for the spread of democracy, freedom, and total justice to other nations. It matters not whether that nation has oil or strategic advantages for our empire's bases. But when "more than 40 politicians, activists and party workers have been killed so far," you'd think our democracy-spreading, war is peace Administration would care about something like this. But you'd be wrong. Oil and strategic advantages for the empire's bases do not exist here. And neither does democracy.



This is a religious war just as much as it is a war for American hegemony. President Bush has called it a crusade, a senior Army officer says that we are at war against Satan here, and this is just another way it is fought. One of many reasons why we need a free and independent press.




What would government controlled news look like? Would they tell us all sides of the story and allow us, lowly citizens that we are, to decide what's right and wrong for our country? Read this and then go read 1984. And then DO something!



Did Rome have this problem before they fell? I think so... And didn't they have this problem, too?

So, the Bush Administration may now be putting Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, the largest branch of Iran's military, on the foreign terrorist list. That's here. But what about what happens in Georgia? Shouldn't we put this (more here) on the foreign terrorist list, too?

Those in the Middle East do not hate our freedoms. They hate this.



Stranger things have come to light in our newly forming police state.



Ok, so...I'm on this train and I see that the bridge we're about to cross is gone - it's collapsed because there wasn't any money put towards its upkeep. The train is moving really fast and I'm trying to get people to help me stop it from flying full-speed into the canyon below. Only problem is, hardly anyone is listening and some are even threatening to throw me off the train...if only I were so lucky. The collapsing bridge is here.



China's tallest building catches fire and burns for longer than 75 minutes and doesn't collapse! Both WTC towers burned for less than an hour and completely destroyed themselves! Maybe they used different steel than we did, or maybe....